Supreme Court Directs All States to Appoint Commissioners Under the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016

In a strong rebuke to state governments across India for their persistent failure to implement the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, the Supreme Court on July 29, 2026, directed eleven states and union territories to appoint State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities within four weeks. A bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.V. Viswanathan passed the directions while hearing a public interest litigation filed by disability rights activist Rajive Raturi. The bench warned that any delay or laxity in complying with its direction would be viewed with utmost seriousness, signalling the judiciary’s growing impatience with bureaucratic inaction on disability rights.

Mandatory Statutory Appointments Under Section 79

Section 79 of the RPwD Act, 2016 mandates every state government to appoint a State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. These commissioners are tasked with monitoring the implementation of the Act, reviewing safeguards provided under the law, examining factors that inhibit the enjoyment of rights, addressing complaints of deprivation of rights, and liaising with authorities to ensure corrective action. Despite this clear statutory mandate, the Court found that eleven states and union territories had failed to make the required appointments. The regions cited for non-compliance include Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The bench emphasized that regional administrations must not show laxity in establishing these critical monitoring authorities. The Court directed the Chief Secretaries of these states and union territories to file affidavits confirming full compliance within the stipulated four-week timeline.

Chief Commissioner Appointment and Central Government Obligations

The bench also voiced strong criticism over the central government’s delay in appointing a permanent Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities. Under Section 74 of the RPwD Act, the central government is required to appoint a Chief Commissioner, who may be assisted by two commissioners. The Court mandated that the Centre appoint a full-time Chief Commissioner alongside two assisting commissioners within the same four-week window. The Chief Commissioner’s office, along with the State Commissioners, forms the backbone of the enforcement and grievance redressal mechanism under the RPwD Act. Without these statutory functionaries in place, the rights guaranteed under the Act remain largely on paper. The Court observed that the status of implementation of the RPwD Act across the country was dismal and needed to be set right urgently. The constitutional protections for marginalized groups enshrined in the Constitution demand proactive enforcement, not passive compliance.

Refining National Accessibility Standards Under Section 40

Alongside the commissioner appointments, the Court addressed the critical issue of physical and digital accessibility standards. Under Section 40 of the RPwD Act, the central government is required to formulate legally enforceable accessibility standards across rural and urban environments, covering public buildings, public transit systems, information technologies, and essential community services. The bench instructed Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the central government, to comprehensively examine all suggestions submitted by technical experts and litigants before publishing the final draft rules in the official gazette. The Court stressed that reviewing these inputs prior to finalization was essential to eliminate technical loopholes and ensure effective implementation. The rule-making process must be completed within six months, the Court directed. The Centre for Disability Studies at NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, has been assigned to assist the government in drafting these standards. Previous accessibility regulations had been criticized for relying on voluntary guidelines and self-regulation rather than enforceable legal mandates, a shortcoming the Court has previously flagged in its orders on various access-to-justice issues.

Long History of Judicial Intervention

The current proceedings in Rajive Raturi v. Union of India stem from slow progress following an earlier landmark ruling on December 15, 2017. In a follow-up directive on November 8, 2024, the Supreme Court had instructed the central government to implement compulsory accessibility norms within three months. The Court had criticized previous regulations for relying on voluntary guidelines rather than enforceable legal mandates. The bench reiterated that ensuring meaningful access requires a dual strategy: retrofitting existing public structures and mandating inclusive design for all new construction projects. To enforce compliance, proposed regulatory mechanisms include withholding building completion certificates and penalizing violators with monetary fines. The Court also directed that the Centre create a mechanism for recovering fines imposed under the RPwD Act. The judicial scrutiny of government compliance reflects the Court’s broader commitment to ensuring that fundamental rights are not merely aspirational but are effectively implemented on the ground. The Court has scheduled the next hearing for January 2027 to review compliance reports from both central and state governments. Similarly, the Court has been active in protecting the rights of persons from disadvantaged backgrounds, including its orders relating to compassionate appointments and welfare measures for vulnerable communities.

Significance for Persons With Disabilities

India is home to an estimated 26.8 million persons with disabilities according to the 2011 Census, though disability rights organizations estimate the actual number to be significantly higher. The RPwD Act, 2016, which replaced the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, expanded the list of recognized disabilities from 7 to 21 categories and introduced several progressive provisions including reservation in higher education and government employment, accessibility mandates, and legal capacity protections. However, the Act’s effectiveness depends entirely on its implementation machinery, particularly the network of commissioners at the central and state levels. Without these functionaries, persons with disabilities have limited avenues for grievance redressal and enforcement of their statutory rights. The Supreme Court’s firm directive reflects a recognition that legislative intent must be matched by institutional action. States that have been apathetic toward appointing commissioners now face judicial accountability, and the four-week deadline leaves little room for further delay. The ruling in the Rajive Raturi case is a reminder that constitutional governance demands not just good laws, but also the institutional infrastructure to bring those laws to life.

Key Takeaways

1. The Supreme Court has given a four-week deadline to eleven states and union territories, including Delhi, Haryana, Rajasthan, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, to appoint State Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities under Section 79 of the RPwD Act, 2016.

2. The central government must appoint a full-time Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities along with two assisting commissioners under Section 74 of the Act within the same timeline.

3. The Centre must finalize enforceable accessibility standards under Section 40 within six months, incorporating expert feedback and moving beyond voluntary guidelines to mandatory legal requirements.

4. The RPwD Act expanded recognized disability categories from 7 to 21, but its implementation depends on the appointment of statutory functionaries at both central and state levels.

5. Any failure to comply with the Court’s deadline will be viewed with utmost seriousness, and the next compliance review is scheduled for January 2027.